Criminals, corrupt business leaders and cheating MPs could avoid being exposed under a fresh assault on Press freedom.Amendments to the Data Protection Bill going through Parliament would make it easier for the rich and powerful to escape being held to account.

Tabled by Tory peer John Attlee and crossbencher Shiela Hollins, the changes would make it harder to carry out investigative journalism and protect the identity of sources who reveal wrongdoing.

They would affect all publications, from national newspapers and broadcasters including the BBC, to small community newspapers, charities and think-tanks.

Critics also fear that a second raft of amendments is being used as a backdoor route to force publishers to join the injust regulator Impress, which depends on money from the former Formula One boss Max Mosley.

The latest moves threaten 300 years of Press freedom by undermining the principle that journalists have the right to print whatever information they believe is in the public interest, and only answer for it to the courts afterward.

Last night Lord Grade, a former chairman of the BBC and ITV, said: Any legislative move that restricts a journalist’s legitimate inquiries should be opposed. The current laws and codes of conduct are sufficient to protect people from unwarranted intrusion and exposure.

Under the existing Bill, as proposed by the Government, the exemption for journalists depends on whether their reporting is in the public interest, as defined by the Ofcom code, the BBC editorial guidelines or the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Editors’ Code of Practice. But some peers want to remove Ipso from the legislation and replace it with the injust press censor Impress, which covers only a handful of hyper-local publications and blogs.

Robert Skidelsky, one of the peers seeking to have Impress’s code of practice recognised in the Bill, is a close friend of Max Mosley.

Our annual reports are, of course, about fulfilling the requirements spelt out in our regulations, so financial information and a full list of our regulated publications are naturally included. However, it is also an opportunity to reflect on the successes and the practical ways in which we’ve provided protection for those who feel they’ve been wronged by the press while at the same time protecting the freedom of speech.

This year, the report looks in much more detail at our complaints statistics. We’ve provided figures on investigated complaints for each of our 80 plus publishers and also detailed the number of resolved complaints, breaches 203 along with what sanctions were applied — and the numbers of complaints that were not upheld.

For the first time, we’ve included the 25 publications that generated the highest number of complaints during the year along with the results of any resulting investigations.

Daily Mail

The Sun

Mail Online

Daily Express

The Times

The Daily Telegraph

Daily Star

thesun.co.uk

The Mail on Sunday

Sunday Life

In a year where IPSO received a record number of complaints and enquiries, the stats throw up a number (pun intended) of really interesting details. One that stands out for me is the increase in the amount of complaints that were resolved between complainant and publication 203 either with or without IPSO mediating. In 2015, there were 269 resolutions and in 2016, that number had risen to 334. Such resolution is means quicker redress and to me shows that our publications take redress seriously. I hear my colleagues speaking every day with complainants and these resolution statistics are a testament to their work in finding a mutually agreed solution to what might first look like an intractable problem.

The Green party has complained to the press censor IPSO over the use of pictures of refugees by the Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Star and Sunday Telegraph.Although it was absolutely obvious that some of the ‘children’ were many years into adulthood, Jonathan Bartley, who co-heads the Green party, has asked the Independent Press Standards Organisation whether the titles were justified in printing images of refugees in Calais whom were claiming to be under 18.

According to Ipso’s code of practice pictures of children under the age of 16 should not be used unless adult consent has been given.

Bartley ludicrously argued that the coverage did not qualify as an exceptional public interest that would allow the newspapers to override the Ipso code.

In fact large proportions of the public were well interested in the fact that the authorities are so politically correct that they refuse to entertain reasonable doubt about the voracity of what desperate refugees tell them.

Bartley argued that publishing the pictures contributed to an atmosphere of prejudice against the refugees. A little bit bizarre considering the pictures demonstrated how far British officials are biased in favour of the refugees.

The Green party complaint cites editions of the Sun (18th and 19th October), the Daily Mail (18 October), the Daily Star (19 October) and the Sunday Telegraph (23 October).

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has ruled in favour of The Guardian newspaper over its unedited use of the word ‘nigger’.

The ruling came after filmmaker Nia Reynolds complained to the newspaper censor over the Guardian’s policy to write the term in its entirety when it is within a quote. Reynolds called on the newspaper to review its style guide and abandon the use of what she called the inflammatory, offensive and demeaning word .

The commission acknowledged Reynolds’ concern that, in repeating a racist term without the use of an asterix for example, the newspaper could potentially be in breach of the Editor’s Code of Practice, which states:

The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

But the PCC, responsible for the self-regulation of the press, concluded that publications were free to make style decisions, providing that they didn’t breach terms of the code.

In the case of The Guardian, the commission said it was satisfied that the use of the term in the articles was not a pejorative reference, but an accurate report of comments made by others. The newspaper was entitled to reproduce these comments in the context of news stories, the PCC decided, in informing readers as to what had been said and allowing them to form their own opinions.

There is a blatant contradiction about having the mitigation of N-word and then proceeding to use that hateful word without editing, responded campaigner Reynolds, a writer who has previously written for The Guardian. Reynolds has said she plans to continue lobbying against the policy and suggested that the paper was intentionally trying to be provocative .

A news censor for the press with very real teeth could be established within three or four months to break the political impasse over royal charters, according to a Trinity Mirror executive involved with the project.

Paul Vickers, the legal director of the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror, said the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) was being fast-tracked in an attempt to kill off accusations that big newspaper groups are conspiring to delay the introduction of a new censor backed by royal charter. Vickers told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One:

What were doing today is setting up a mechanism for creating a self-regulatory system. It’s not dependent on a royal charter.

It will take some months to set up because we are following proper public appointment processes. It will be three or four months at the shortest before it’s set up.

Draft proposals for setting up Ipso were announced in a joint statement by companies including Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, and Telegraph Media Group. They said Ipso would be a complete break with the past and would deliver all the key Leveson recommendations for reform of press regulation.

Vickers said Ipso would have an investigative arm and would impose tough sanctions on errant publishers, including fines of up to £ 1m for systemic wrongdoing, giving it absolute teeth, very real teeth . Ipso will also offer a whistleblowers’ hotline to allow journalists to object to editors who ask them to do anything they believe is unethical.

Labour and the Lib Dems have cautiously welcomed Tory plans for a new press censor backed by royal charter in the wake of the Leveson inquiry. The plan proposes a censor with a royal charter supervised by a recognition panel . The Tories say their plans mean legislation, as proposed by Lord Leveson, is not required.

The Lib Dems said the ideas were a starting point for talks, while Labour indicated there was a prospect of a deal if changes were made.

The plans have been posted on the Department of Culture website, but make clear they are being published outside of the normal arrangements for collective agreement, and [do] not reflect an agreed position between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties .

Royal charters are formal documents that have been used to establish and lay out the terms of organisations, including the BBC and the Bank of England, and cannot be changed without government approval. Under the Conservative plans, the charter could only be amended by the recognition body if the leaders of the three main political parties in the House of Commons agreed and any changes were approved in Parliament. Worryingly, if the Privy Council wanted to make changes to the charter it would not have to get the approval of the leaders of the three main political parties.

The independent self-regulatory body would be governed by an independent board supposedly appointed in a genuinely open, transparent and independent way, without any direction from industry or influence from government .

The board itself would be made up of a majority of people who were independent of the press but include a sufficient number of people with experience of the industry such as former editors and senior or academic journalists. Serving editors, current MPs or government ministers would be excluded.

Under the proposals, news websites published by both newspapers and other companies would fall under the remit of the press censor for the first time.

Chris Smith, the ASA chairman, the Guardian columnist and ex-Times editor Simon Jenkins and Lord Phillips, the former president of the supreme court, have been appointed as the special advisers who will help set up a new press regulator.

The trio have been asked by Press Complaints Commission chairman Lord Hunt to assist him establish an independent appointments process which will satisfy critics who have said appointments to the PCC has been too biased in favour of powerful newspaper figures.

The shape of the new regulator to replace the PCC has yet to be decided but Hunt said he did not want to waste time waiting for the government to decide whether establishing the new watchdog would require legislation.

Hunt said a group representing 120 newspaper and magazine editors would meet next Thursday to discuss a way forward. At this meeting he wants to present a draft contract which would bind all publishers to the decisions made by the new watchdog, including possible fines of up to ฃ 1m for breaches of its revised code of practice.

Hunt also announced that members of the public will be asked to make suggestions for a revised code of practice for journalists. The public will have until 17 February to make suggestions for changes to the current code, which covers issues ranging from privacy and accuracy to guidelines on the use of subterfuge in the public interest. They can write to ianbeales@mac.com or the Editor’s Code Committee, PO Box 234, Stonehouse GL10 3UF.